State and Government in Ancient India c8.s2.33

c8.s2.33

There are no doubt some serious descrepancies between Kauṭilya and Megasthenes; but in most cases it can be shown that the Greek ambassador’s account is unreliable. The latter is, for some reasons unknown to us, drawing too rosy a picture of the Indian society when he states that theft, drinking and slavery were unknown in India. The data in the *Arthaśāstra* are not consistent with these statements, but are supported by the evidence of the Dharmasūtras written at about the 4th century B. C.; we can therefore well place him in the Mauryan period, though his picture differs from that of Megasthenes. Megasthenes’ statement that Indians did not know the art of writing and administered the laws from memory is now universally accepted as incorrect. His statement that the horses and elephants were the monopoly of the king is contradicted by Strabo and Arrian, who agree with Kauṭilya in recognising private ownership of these animals. When Megasthenes states that the state was the owner of land, he probably refers to the crown lands. Patañjali agrees with Kauṭilya in recognising the private ownership of arable land. The non-reference in the *Arthaśāstra* to the boards of five in the city and the military administration may be due to the fact that Kauṭilya perhaps wanted to refer to only the heads of the offices and not to their advisory councils